New documents show how ‘civil society’ contributed to draft AI and privacy legislation
Why It Matters
AI use is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and regulation lags behind. A new Access to Information request shows how Canada’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act was drafted - a piece of regulation which has now stalled because of prorogation.
New documents reveal that civil society organizations were key participants in Canada’s draft legislation on artificial intelligence and data privacy.
Blair Attard-Frost, a researcher focused on AI governance in Canada, submitted an Access to Information (ATI) request, receiving more than 300 pages about the proposed legislation—which is now no longer going through the parliamentary process because of prorogation.
The release also suggested that around 400 pages of information had been withheld according to sections of the Access to Information Act.
Civil society organizations were noted as asking about banning certain applications of AI and highlighting that the proposed AI and Data Commissioner would need more of an autonomous role from the federal government.
It was not made clear exactly what sorts of groups and organizations made up the ‘civil society’ category.
By contrast, consultations with the private sector found that companies were likely to be concerned about “discerning liability between different actors” involved in developing and deploying artificial intelligence programs and removing blockages that would lead to a “potential chill on innovation.”
The ATI request includes an open letter from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group to the leaders of opposition parties in 2023 expressing concerns about—and encouraging them to vote against—the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA).
Their concerns include an absence of public consultation and regulation that would have been shaped after – and if – the Bill would have passed.
The ATI also reveals that it was the ambition of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to conduct “extensive consultations” after AIDA would receive Royal Assent.
AIDA: not liked, but necessary
Before prorogation, Bill C-27 covered the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act.
According to one of the documents released as part of this ATI request, in November 2022, “the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that AIDA will be voted on separately from the other two parts of Bill C-27 due to its being different enough from the other to parts of the Bill to warrant a separate vote.”
In the context of the CPPA, the opposition, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) and civil society wanted to see more “rights-based language” and safeguards, whilst businesses seemed to lean towards broadening exceptions to informed consent.
As stated in the AIDA companion document – released to the public to better communicate the intentions of the Bill – “in the initial years after it comes into force, the focus of AIDA would be on education […] and helping businesses to come into compliance through voluntary means.”
In a Q&A document, ISED also recognizes that “the Canadian context is unique” because of the large proportion of small and medium-sized businesses in the country. “We must design a law they can follow without undue burden,” they write.
Bill C-27, AIDA, and many other pieces of legislation have now ground to a halt, but they are likely to be back on the agenda when Parliament resumes.
Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error
